Tag Archives: Lewis D. Kowal

Kressel, Win -v- Cachet Grayhawk Condominuim

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 08F-HO780002-BFS
Agency Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Tribunal Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date 2007-10-09
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA properly classified the Petitioner's sister as a resident who is ineligible for guest parking. The ALJ further ruled that the Board had the authority to adopt the parking rules without a membership vote and that the rules were not unreasonable.
Filing Fees Refunded $0.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Win Kressel Counsel —
Respondent Cachet Grayhawk Condominium Counsel Jeffrey B. Corben

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1227; Declaration Sections 4.13 and 6.3

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the petition, ruling that the HOA properly classified the Petitioner's sister as a resident who is ineligible for guest parking. The ALJ further ruled that the Board had the authority to adopt the parking rules without a membership vote and that the rules were not unreasonable.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the Association violated the Declaration or statutes; the sister was a resident not entitled to guest parking privileges.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of guest parking for resident sister and validity of parking rules

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated the Declaration and statutes by denying his sister (a resident) use of guest parking and by adopting parking rules without a unit owner vote.

Orders: No action required of the Association; Petition dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1227
  • Declaration Section 4.13
  • Declaration Section 6.3
  • Declaration Section 4.25
  • Declaration Section 13.15

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

08F-HO780002-BFS Decision – 178155.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-25T15:24:17 (74.9 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Kressel v. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium

Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the findings and conclusions of Law Case No. 08F-HO780002-BFS, presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal. The dispute involved Petitioner Dr. Win Kressel and Respondent Cachet Grayhawk Condominium regarding the enforcement of parking restrictions.

The central issue was whether the Association’s refusal to permit the Petitioner’s sister to use guest parking or park in his driveway violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Declaration), the Association’s Parking Rules, or Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 33-1227. The ALJ dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner’s sister qualified as a “resident” rather than a “guest” under the established rules, thereby disqualifying her from guest parking privileges. Furthermore, the ALJ ruled that the Board acted within its authority to adopt parking rules and that the Petitioner failed to establish any unreasonable discrimination or statutory violations.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Category

Details

Case Number

08F-HO780002-BFS

Petitioner

Dr. Win Kressel

Respondent

Cachet Grayhawk Condominium; Rossmar & Graham Management Company

Hearing Date

October 9, 2007

Administrative Law Judge

Lewis D. Kowal

——————————————————————————–

Core Themes and Legal Analysis

1. Classification of Residency and Parking Eligibility

The dispute hinged on the definition of a “resident” versus a “guest” as defined by the Association’s Parking Rules and the Declaration.

• Petitioner’s Circumstances: Dr. Kressel’s sister moved into his unit in early summer 2007 with the intent to stay indefinitely.

• Rule Definitions:

◦ Residents: Defined as anyone occupying a unit on a full-time or part-time basis.

◦ Guests/Visitors: Defined as individuals visiting for up to 60 days.

• ALJ Finding: Because the Petitioner’s sister was a family member and an occupant of the unit, she fell under the definition of a “resident.” Consequently, under Section 4.13 of the Declaration, she was prohibited from using guest parking areas.

2. Authority of the Board to Adopt Rules

The Petitioner argued that the Parking Rules adopted in 2004 constituted an unauthorized amendment to the Declaration that should have required a vote from all unit owners per A.R.S. § 33-1227.

• Declaration Section 6.3: Grants the Board the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations governing the use of any area by owners, family, or invitees.

• ALJ Finding: The 2004 rules were not an amendment to the Declaration but were rules adopted by a Board vote as permitted by the Declaration. The Petitioner failed to provide legal authority to support the claim that the rules were invalid or improperly adopted.

3. Discrimination and Unreasonableness Claims

The Petitioner contended that the rules were unreasonable and discriminatory because they restricted him to a single parking space, which he argued could force him to move if his household size increased (e.g., through marriage).

• The Variance Provision: Section 4.25 of the Declaration allows for variances. Testimony from the Association President, James Friebacher, revealed that he and five other owners had received variances to park second vehicles in their driveways.

• ALJ Finding: The Petitioner had never applied for a variance under Section 4.25. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a legal standard or factual evidence showing the rules were unreasonable under the circumstances.

——————————————————————————–

Evidence and Key Findings of Fact

The following evidence was established during the hearing:

• Temporary Accommodations: The Association had previously granted the Petitioner “unusual exceptions” for his sister’s parking. This included a guest parking approval through July 1, 2007, which was later extended to September 1, 2007, with the stipulation that the vehicle could not be parked in the driveway.

• Failure to Request Extension: The Petitioner did not file a request with the Association to extend the guest parking exception beyond the September 1, 2007 deadline.

• Vehicle Limitations: Section 4.13 of the Declaration permits guest parking in driveways only for vehicles not exceeding 7 feet in height and 18 feet in length. However, this applies strictly to guests; family members and occupants are explicitly excluded from guest parking privileges.

——————————————————————————–

Final Decision and Order

Dismissal of Petition

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Declaration or A.R.S. § 33-1227.

• Conclusion: The Association’s actions were consistent with the Declaration and Parking Rules.

• Order: The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Association.

Costs and Attorney Fees

The Association requested an award for costs and attorney fees under Section 13.15 of the Declaration.

• ALJ Ruling: The request was denied. The ALJ found that Section 13.15 did not provide for the recovery of costs and fees for defending against this specific type of administrative action.

——————————————————————————–

Notable Quotes

Administrative Law Judge Decision Study Guide: Kressel v. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the legal dispute between Dr. Win Kressel and the Cachet Grayhawk Condominium Association regarding parking regulations and the interpretation of the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative decision.

1. What was the primary complaint filed by Dr. Win Kressel against the Association?

2. How do the Association’s Parking Rules distinguish between a “resident” and a “visitor/guest”?

3. What specific parking restrictions are placed on unit owners and their family members under Section 4.13 of the Declaration?

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that Petitioner’s sister was a resident rather than a guest?

5. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s request for guest parking in early 2007?

6. What argument did the Petitioner make regarding the adoption of Parking Rules and A.R.S. § 33-1227?

7. How did the ALJ rule on the Petitioner’s claim that the Parking Rules were an “amendment” to the Declaration?

8. What evidence was provided regarding the possibility of obtaining a “variance” for parking?

9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Association’s request for attorney fees and costs?

10. What is the Board’s authority regarding rule-making as defined in Section 6.3 of the Declaration?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. What was the primary complaint filed by Dr. Win Kressel against the Association? Dr. Win Kressel alleged that the Association violated the Declaration and state law by refusing to allow his sister to park in his driveway or providing her with guest parking. He specifically contended that the Association’s actions violated Sections 4.13 and 6.3 of the Declaration and A.R.S. § 33-1227.

2. How do the Association’s Parking Rules distinguish between a “resident” and a “visitor/guest”? A resident is defined as anyone who occupies a unit on a full-time or part-time basis, excluding visitors or guests. Visitors and guests are defined as individuals visiting for a period of up to 60 days.

3. What specific parking restrictions are placed on unit owners and their family members under Section 4.13 of the Declaration? Unit owners are prohibited from parking automobiles anywhere on the condominium property except in their assigned garages. Furthermore, owners, their family members, and occupants are explicitly barred from using guest parking areas.

4. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conclude that Petitioner’s sister was a resident rather than a guest? The ALJ noted that the Petitioner’s sister had moved into the unit and that the Petitioner testified she could stay as long as she wished. Because she occupied the unit indefinitely, she met the definition of a resident and therefore did not qualify for guest parking privileges.

5. What was the Association’s initial response to the Petitioner’s request for guest parking in early 2007? The Association initially granted an “unusual exception” by approving guest parking for the sister through July 1, 2007, and later extended it to September 1, 2007. However, they stipulated that the vehicle could not be parked in the driveway and stated that no further extensions would be granted beyond that date.

6. What argument did the Petitioner make regarding the adoption of Parking Rules and A.R.S. § 33-1227? The Petitioner argued that the Parking Rules adopted by the Board in 2004 actually constituted an amendment to the Declaration. He contended that under A.R.S. § 33-1227, such an amendment required a formal vote of the unit owners rather than a simple Board vote.

7. How did the ALJ rule on the Petitioner’s claim that the Parking Rules were an “amendment” to the Declaration? The ALJ rejected this claim, stating that the Petitioner’s characterization was in error. The judge found that there was no amendment to the Declaration; rather, the Board had exercised its permitted authority under the Declaration to adopt rules.

8. What evidence was provided regarding the possibility of obtaining a “variance” for parking? James Friebacher, the Board President, testified that Section 4.25 of the Declaration allows residents to apply for a variance, which he himself had successfully done to park a second vehicle in his driveway. However, it was established that the Petitioner had never actually applied to the Board for such a variance.

9. On what grounds did the ALJ deny the Association’s request for attorney fees and costs? The ALJ denied the request because Section 13.15 of the Declaration, which the Association cited as the basis for the award, did not contain provisions allowing the Association to recover costs for defending this specific type of action.

10. What is the Board’s authority regarding rule-making as defined in Section 6.3 of the Declaration? Section 6.3 grants the Board the power to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations that govern the use of any area by owners, families, invitees, or lessees. These rules are valid as long as they do not “unreasonably discriminate” among the unit owners.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the facts and legal conclusions from the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Resident vs. Guest Distinction: Analyze how the definition of “occupancy” influenced the outcome of this case. How did the Petitioner’s own testimony regarding his sister’s stay undermine his legal position under the Association’s Parking Rules?

2. Board Authority and Rule-Making: Discuss the legal difference between amending a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and adopting “rules and regulations” as seen in this case. Why is this distinction vital for HOA governance?

3. The Burden of Proof: Explain the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as it was applied to the Petitioner’s claims. In what specific ways did the Petitioner fail to meet this evidentiary standard?

4. The Principle of Unreasonable Discrimination: Section 6.3 prohibits rules that “unreasonably discriminate” among owners. Evaluate the Petitioner’s claim of discrimination in light of the fact that the Board President held a parking variance while the Petitioner did not.

5. Contractual Interpretation of Fees: Analyze the ALJ’s decision regarding the Association’s request for legal fees. Why is the specific language of a Declaration’s “costs and fees” provision (such as Section 13.15) critical in administrative hearings?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

A.R.S. § 33-1227

An Arizona Revised Statute cited by the Petitioner regarding the requirements for amending a condominium declaration.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The presiding official (in this case, Lewis D. Kowal) who hears evidence and issues a decision in an administrative hearing.

Architectural Committee

A specific body within the Association that met to review and initially approve temporary parking exceptions for the Petitioner.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the legal document that governs the use of the property and the powers of the Association.

Guest/Visitor

Defined by the Association’s rules as an individual visiting a resident for a period not exceeding 60 days.

Petition

The formal written request or complaint filed by the Petitioner to initiate the legal process with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The legal standard of proof required in this civil/administrative matter, meaning the claim is more likely to be true than not true.

Resident

Any person who occupies a unit on a full-time or part-time basis; residents are prohibited from using guest parking under the Association’s rules.

Section 4.13

The specific provision of the Declaration prohibiting owners from parking anywhere except assigned garages and regulating guest driveway use.

Section 4.25

The provision of the Declaration that allows for the granting of a “variance” or exception to the established rules.

Section 6.3

The provision of the Declaration granting the Board authority to adopt or repeal rules governing the use of the community.

Variance

A formal exception to a rule or regulation, granted by the Board under specific circumstances (e.g., allowing a second vehicle in a driveway).

When Family Becomes a Resident: 4 Surprising Truths About HOA Parking Wars

1. Introduction: The Unforeseen Conflict of a “Full House”

It is a common and often generous scenario: a family member needs a place to stay, and you have the space to accommodate them. However, within the structured legal environment of a Condominium Association, this act of hospitality can trigger a complex battle over asphalt and curb space. For Dr. Win Kressel, what began as a family arrangement devolved into a formal dispute before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that would redefine his understanding of “home.”

The case of Win Kressel vs. Cachet Grayhawk Condominium serves as a critical case study for any homeowner. The conflict centered on whether a family member is legally a “guest” or a “resident”—a distinction that carries heavy consequences for where a vehicle may be parked. By examining the ALJ’s findings, we can uncover the surprising legal realities that govern modern community living.

2. Takeaway 1: Your Sister Isn’t a “Guest” (Legally Speaking)

Under many Association Parking Rules, the transition from “guest” to “resident” is governed by intent and occupancy rather than just a calendar. In the Cachet Grayhawk case, the rules defined a resident as anyone who occupies a unit on a full or part-time basis. While “guests” were defined as those visiting for up to 60 days, the ALJ focused on the Petitioner’s own testimony to determine the sister’s status.

In a move of legal irony, Dr. Kressel’s generous testimony—stating his sister resided in his unit and could stay “as long as she wished”—was the primary evidence used to strip her of guest status. This distinction is vital due to Section 4.13 of the Declaration. Under this provision, guests are granted the privilege of parking in driveways. Residents, however, are strictly relegated to the garages assigned to the unit and are barred from guest parking areas.

By declaring her an occupant with an indefinite stay, Kressel inadvertently legally disqualified her from using the driveway. As the Administrative Law Judge noted:

3. Takeaway 2: The Board’s Pen is Mightier Than the Vote

A common misconception among homeowners is that any rule affecting property rights requires a community-wide vote. Dr. Kressel challenged the Parking Rules by citing A.R.S. § 33-1227, arguing that such regulations constituted an “amendment” to the Declaration that required a membership vote.

The legal reality is found in Section 6.3 of the Declaration. This provision grants the Board the specific authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules governing the use of the property without a full vote of unit owners. The ALJ clarified that as long as the Board acts within this administrative authority and the rules do not “unreasonably discriminate” among owners, they are legally binding. The court found that Dr. Kressel failed to establish that the Board’s adoption of these standards was an error; they were valid rules, not invalid amendments.

4. Takeaway 3: The “Variance” Loophole You’re Probably Missing

One of the most revealing moments of the hearing involved the testimony of Board President James Friebacher. It was revealed that Mr. Friebacher held a variance under Section 4.25 of the Declaration, allowing him to park a second vehicle in his driveway—a privilege denied to Dr. Kressel’s sister.

While this might appear to be favoritism at first glance, the “Legal Analyst” must look at the timeline. The evidence showed that Mr. Friebacher was one of six owners who received such a variance in 2004, and crucially, he was not a member of the Board when he applied. The Petitioner’s failure was not necessarily a victim of corruption, but a failure to navigate the proper “administrative channel.” Mr. Friebacher testified that Dr. Kressel had never actually applied for a variance under Section 4.25. The lesson is clear: you cannot successfully argue a rule is being unfairly applied if you have not first utilized the procedural remedies available to you.

5. Takeaway 4: Guest Parking is a Temporary Privilege, Not a Backup Plan

Guest parking is often a tiered privilege rather than a permanent right. The Cachet Grayhawk rules established a clear hierarchy:

• Up to 15 days: Guests may park in designated areas without Board approval.

• 15 to 60 days: Mandatory Board approval is required.

• Beyond 60 days: The occupant is generally reclassified as a resident.

The Association had initially granted Dr. Kressel an “unusual exception” due to “extraordinary circumstances,” allowing his sister to use guest parking through September 1, 2007. However, the Association was legally entitled to set a hard expiration date on this grace period. The court affirmed that “extraordinary circumstances” do not create a permanent right to bypass the Declaration. When the deadline passed, the privilege evaporated, and the Association was under no legal obligation to extend it.

6. Conclusion: The Fine Print of Modern Living

The Kressel dispute highlights a harsh reality: in a Condominium Association, personal logic and family ties are secondary to the specific definitions within the CC&Rs. Dr. Kressel argued that these rules were “unreasonable,” claiming that if he were to marry or start a family, the single parking space restriction would force him to move.

The Judge was unmoved by this appeal to “future logic,” finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” required to prove the rules were discriminatory or unreasonable. The Board’s need to set community standards outweighed the Petitioner’s personal lifestyle choices.

Before you invite a loved one to move in, you must look past the guest room and toward the governing documents. If your lifestyle changes tomorrow, do you know which section of your HOA agreement might suddenly turn your driveway into a legal battlefield?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Win Kressel (Petitioner)
    Dr. Win Kressel represented himself

Respondent Side

  • Jeffrey B. Corben (Respondent Attorney)
    Maxwell & Morgan
    Representing Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
  • James Friebacher (witness)
    Cachet Grayhawk Condominium
    President of the Association and Board member

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Listed on mailing distribution

Martin, John C. -v- Oakwood Lakes Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067014-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-03-19
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner regarding the neighbor's unauthorized home business and the improper placement of a mist system, finding the Association failed to enforce its governing documents. The Association was ordered to enforce the CC&Rs and Guidelines and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee. The claim regarding nuisance was denied based on Board discretion.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John C. Martin Counsel —
Respondent Oakwood Lakes Community Association Counsel Aaron S. Peterson

Alleged Violations

Article 3, Section 3.11
Article 3, Section 3.3
Rear Yard and Side Yard Landscaping Sections

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner regarding the neighbor's unauthorized home business and the improper placement of a mist system, finding the Association failed to enforce its governing documents. The Association was ordered to enforce the CC&Rs and Guidelines and reimburse the Petitioner's filing fee. The claim regarding nuisance was denied based on Board discretion.

Key Issues & Findings

Home Business Violation

Petitioner alleged neighbor was conducting a business on their lot in violation of CC&Rs. The ALJ found the business activity violated the CC&Rs despite City permits.

Orders: Association ordered to comply with and enforce its CC&Rs regarding the home business violation.

Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 3, Section 3.11

Nuisance

Petitioner alleged the neighbor's business activity constituted a nuisance. The ALJ found the Board had sole discretion under the CC&Rs to define nuisance.

Orders: No violation found regarding nuisance.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • Article 3, Section 3.3
  • Section 3.11

Improper Watering/Mist System

Petitioner alleged neighbor's watering/mist system damaged the boundary wall. ALJ found the system violated guidelines and the Board failed to follow up on removal.

Orders: Association ordered to enforce Architectural Guidelines regarding the mist system.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article 7, Section 7.4
  • Architectural Guidelines

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067014-BFS Decision – 164267.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-29T09:32:11 (92.3 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Martin v. Oakwood Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

On March 19, 2007, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal issued a decision in the matter of John C. Martin v. Oakwood Lakes Community Association. The case centered on allegations that the Oakwood Lakes Community Association (“Association”) failed to enforce its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Architectural Guidelines against a neighboring property owner, the Downings.

The Petitioner, John Martin, alleged that his neighbors were operating a commercial plant business and over-watering their property, resulting in damage to a shared boundary wall. The Association argued the matter was a private neighbor-to-neighbor dispute and that they had taken reasonable steps to investigate.

The ALJ ruled in favor of Mr. Martin, finding that the Association’s CC&Rs were more restrictive than city ordinances and that the Association had neglected its duty to ensure compliance after receiving evidence of violations. The Association was ordered to enforce its governing documents and reimburse Mr. Martin’s filing fee of $550.00.

——————————————————————————–

Background of the Dispute

The conflict originated in 2005 when John Martin began reporting issues regarding his neighbors, the Downings, at 755 West Beechnut Drive. Mr. Martin’s complaints focused on two primary issues:

• Commercial Activity: Mrs. Downing operated a plant servicing business from her backyard.

• Property Damage: Intermittent over-watering associated with the business was causing seeping, staining, and damage to the boundary block wall separating the Martin and Downing properties.

Despite multiple courtesy letters and a formal violation letter issued by the Board of Directors in March 2006, the activity continued. The Association’s management changed hands several times during this period, complicating the continuity of enforcement.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of Business Operations and Local Ordinances

A central point of contention was the legality of the Downings’ home business. The following table outlines the conflicting standards between the City of Chandler and the Association’s CC&Rs:

Authority

Regulation/Status

City of Chandler

Issued a permit for the home business; limited plant storage to 50 square feet; prohibited deliveries.

Association CC&Rs (Art. 3, Sec 3.11)

Provides a home business exception for the “residential unit” only; does not extend this exception to the “lot” or backyard.

ALJ Conclusion

The Association’s CC&Rs were more restrictive than city code. The business activity on the lot (backyard) constituted a violation of Section 3.11.

The Board argued that because the business could not be seen from the street, it did not warrant further action. However, the ALJ determined that the weight of the evidence showed the Association had sufficient information to recognize a violation of Article 7, Section 7.4 (improper use of the lot).

——————————————————————————–

Architectural Guidelines and Irrigation Issues

The Petitioner alleged that the Downings’ irrigation practices violated specific community standards regarding property maintenance.

Evidence of Mismanagement

• The Mist System: A property management representative, Mitch Kellogg, inspected the site and found a mist system located near the boundary wall with plants and shrubs in the immediate vicinity.

• Structural Impact: Mr. Kellogg observed that both sides of the boundary wall were wet during his visit, though he did not personally attribute a specific crack in the wall to the watering.

• Regulatory Violation: The Association’s Architectural Rules (page 8) explicitly require irrigation systems to be directed away from walls to prevent damage.

Failure of Oversight

The ALJ found the Association negligent in its follow-up procedures. Although the Downings claimed they would turn off the drip system and move the plants, the Association:

1. Failed to conduct a follow-up visit to confirm compliance.

2. Assumed the matter was resolved simply because they had not heard from Mr. Martin for a few months.

3. Ignored Mr. Martin’s testimony that the seeping and damage continued throughout 2006.

——————————————————————————–

Legal Conclusions and Rulings

The ALJ evaluated the case based on a preponderance of the evidence, defined as evidence that is “more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it.”

Summary of Legal Findings

• Violation of Residential Use (CC&R 3.11): The business was conducted on the lot, not within the unit, violating the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Maintenance (CC&R 7.4): The Downings failed to maintain their lot in accordance with community standards.

• Nuisance Claim (CC&R 3.3): The ALJ did not find a violation of the nuisance provision. The CC&Rs grant the Board “sole discretion” to define a nuisance, and the ALJ determined the Board did not consider the business a nuisance.

• Breach of Duty: The Board failed to enforce its Architectural Guidelines regarding the mist system and irrigation.

Final Order

The Association was ordered to:

1. Comply with and Enforce the CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines in relation to the Downings’ property.

2. Reimburse John Martin for his $550.00 filing fee within 45 days of the order (March 19, 2007).

The decision underscores that an Association’s duty to enforce its governing documents is not mitigated by the existence of city permits or the characterization of a complaint as a “neighbor-to-neighbor” dispute when clear CC&R violations are present.

Study Guide: Martin v. Oakwood Lakes Community Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative hearing between John C. Martin and the Oakwood Lakes Community Association. It explores the legal obligations of a homeowners association, the interpretation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the standards of proof required in administrative proceedings.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided administrative decision.

1. What was the primary basis of John C. Martin’s complaint against the Oakwood Lakes Community Association?

2. How did the City of Chandler’s business permit affect the Association’s ability to enforce its own rules?

3. What specific evidence did the property management representative, Mitch Kellogg, find during his inspection of the properties?

4. Why did the Association’s Board of Directors conclude that the matter had been resolved in March 2006?

5. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as defined in this case?

6. In what way did the Downings’ business activity violate Article 3, Section 3.11 of the CC&Rs?

7. Why was the Board not found in violation regarding the alleged “nuisance” caused by the Downings?

8. What specific requirements did the Architectural Rules and CC&Rs establish regarding irrigation and boundary walls?

9. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) characterize the Board’s failure to ensure the Downings followed through on their promises?

10. What was the final remedy ordered by the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Answer: Mr. Martin alleged that his neighbors, the Downings, were operating an unpermitted plant servicing business and over-watering their property, causing damage to a shared boundary wall. He contended that the Association breached its contractual duties by failing to stop these violations of the CC&Rs and Architectural Rules.

2. Answer: While the City of Chandler issued a permit for the home business with certain conditions, the ALJ ruled that municipal permission does not preclude an association from having more restrictive requirements. The Association’s CC&Rs remained the governing authority for what was permitted on the residential lots within the community.

3. Answer: Kellogg observed a watering mist system and plants near the boundary wall and noted that both sides of the wall were wet. However, he did not observe any physical damage to the wall in the specific area where the watering was occurring, though he did see a crack elsewhere on Mr. Martin’s wall.

4. Answer: The Board assumed the issue was settled because they received a written representation from Mrs. Downing stating the watering had stopped. Additionally, the Board relied on Mr. Kellogg’s inspection report and the fact that they had not heard further complaints from Mr. Martin since the issuance of a violation letter in March 2006.

5. Answer: As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary and cited in the case, it is evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition. It essentially means that the facts sought to be proved are “more probable than not.”

6. Answer: The CC&Rs provided an exception for home businesses conducted within a “residential unit,” but not on the “lot” itself. Because Mrs. Downing was storing plants and operating the business in her backyard (the lot) rather than inside the home, the activity fell outside the permitted exception.

7. Answer: The CC&Rs grant the Board of Directors “sole discretion” to determine what constitutes a nuisance. Because there was credible evidence that the Board did not consider the business activity to be a nuisance, the ALJ found no violation of that specific provision.

8. Answer: The Architectural Rules require irrigation systems to be directed away from walls to prevent seeping and staining. Furthermore, Sections 7.4 and 7.5 of the CC&Rs mandate proper maintenance of the property and prohibit use that violates other sections of the governing documents.

9. Answer: The ALJ noted that the Board neglected to perform any follow-up visits to confirm that the Downings had actually moved their plants and turned off the drip system as requested. This lack of verification meant the Association failed to ensure compliance with its own previous requests and the governing documents.

10. Answer: The Association was ordered to comply with and enforce its CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines regarding the identified violations. Additionally, the Association was required to reimburse Mr. Martin for his $550.00 filing fee within forty-five days.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the facts and legal conclusions from the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts.

1. The Hierarchy of Governance: Analyze the legal relationship between municipal permits (such as those from the City of Chandler) and private community contracts (CC&Rs). Why is a homeowners association permitted to be more restrictive than local government ordinances?

2. Discretionary vs. Mandatory Enforcement: Discuss the difference between the Board’s “sole discretion” in determining a nuisance versus its obligation to enforce clear violations of the CC&Rs, such as the unauthorized use of a residential lot for business.

3. The Role of Property Management: Evaluate the effectiveness of the property management company’s actions in this case. How did the lack of follow-up inspections by the management representative impact the Board’s legal position and the final decision of the ALJ?

4. Neighbor Disputes vs. Association Responsibility: The Association argued that this was essentially a “neighbor to neighbor dispute.” Based on the ALJ’s findings, at what point does a private dispute between two residents become a matter of Association liability and contractual duty?

5. Burden of Proof in Administrative Law: Explain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in the context of this hearing. What specific evidence allowed Mr. Martin to meet this burden regarding the business activity and irrigation issues?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judicial officer who presides over hearings and makes decisions regarding disputes involving government agency rules or administrative petitions.

Architectural Rules

Specific guidelines within a community that govern the appearance and maintenance of lots, including landscaping and irrigation placement.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing legal documents that dictate the rules for a common interest development.

Courtesy Letter

An informal notification sent by an association to a homeowner to advise them of a complaint or a potential violation before formal fines or actions are taken.

Lot vs. Residential Unit

In this case, a legal distinction where the “unit” refers to the actual house and the “lot” refers to the surrounding property (e.g., the backyard).

Nuisance

An activity or condition that is harmful or annoying; under these CC&Rs, the Board has the “sole discretion” to define what qualifies as such.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings a legal matter to a hearing; in this case, John C. Martin.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, meaning the evidence shows a fact is more likely true than not.

Prevailing Party

The party in a legal proceeding that succeeds on the main issues; they are often entitled to the reimbursement of certain costs, such as filing fees.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, the Oakwood Lakes Community Association.

The “City Permit” Trap: Why Your Home Business Might Still Be Illegal in Your Own Backyard

Introduction: The HOA vs. The Entrepreneur

Imagine watching a neighbor’s mist system slowly erode your common block wall, all while the homeowner points to a city permit as their shield. This was the reality for John Martin in the case of Martin v. Oakwood Lakes Community Association. What began as a “neighbor dispute” over a backyard plant nursery ended in a scathing administrative decision that cost the Association a $550 filing fee and a court order to finally do its job.

For the entrepreneur, this case is a chilling warning: municipal approval does not equal community compliance. For the homeowner, it is a roadmap for holding a negligent Board’s feet to the fire. Your property rights can vanish in the space between a “lot” and a “unit”—a linguistic trap that most homeowners never see coming.

Takeaway 1: The City Permit Illusion

A common and dangerous misconception is that a municipal permit acts as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Mrs. Downing, the business owner in this case, held an official permit from the City of Chandler to operate her plant servicing business. However, when you buy into an HOA, you are essentially signing away certain municipal rights in favor of a private contract.

The legal reality is that HOA Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) often override the liberties granted by city hall. As the judge noted in Conclusion of Law #3:

Takeaway 2: The Linguistic Trap of “Lot” vs. “Residential Unit”

In the world of HOA litigation, microscopic wording determines your fate. Mrs. Downing believed she was safe because the City of Chandler explicitly authorized her to store up to fifty square feet of plants in her backyard. She followed the city’s rules to the letter, yet she still lost.

The “trap” lay in Article 3, Section 3.11 of the CC&Rs. This section allows for home businesses, but only if they are conducted within the “residential unit.” By moving her plant storage to the “lot” (the backyard), she triggered a technical violation. This distinction proves that even if the city says “yes” to your backyard, your HOA contract may strictly limit your livelihood to what happens behind four interior walls.

Takeaway 3: Silence is Not Compliance—The Board’s Duty to Follow Up

One of the most egregious failures in this case was the Board’s decision to abandon its oversight. After an initial inspection by a management representative, the Board received a written promise from the Downings that they would comply with the rules. The Board then “assumed the matter had been resolved,” largely because they had not heard from the Martins for several months.

As a Community Rights Advocate, I cannot stress this enough: Silence from a victim does not equal compliance by the violator. The court found that the Board “neglected to perform any follow-up visit” (Conclusion of Law #6) to verify the business had actually moved inside. A Board cannot legally “assume” away its enforcement obligations; they have a contractual duty to confirm that violations are actually cured.

Takeaway 4: Discretion is Not a License to Ignore Technical Rules

The Oakwood Lakes Board attempted to dodge its responsibility by labeling this a “neighbor to neighbor dispute.” They argued that under Section 3.3, they have “sole discretion” to determine what constitutes a “nuisance.” Since they didn’t see the business as a nuisance, they felt they could stay out of it.

The Judge drew a sharp line here that every homeowner should memorize. While Boards have broad discretion over subjective “nuisances,” they have zero leeway to ignore objective technical standards. The Downings’ mist system was a direct violation of the Architectural Guidelines (Page 3) regarding drainage and common walls, as well as Section 7.4 of the CC&Rs. You cannot use “discretion” as a cloak to hide a refusal to enforce specific, written architectural rules.

Takeaway 5: The Financial Cost of Board Inaction

When a Board fails to act, the community pays. In Martin v. Oakwood Lakes, the Association was hit with a Final Order that did more than just slap their wrists. The Judge ordered the Association to reimburse Mr. Martin’s $550 filing fee and, more importantly, issued a mandatory order for the Association to enforce its own CC&Rs and Architectural Guidelines.

This is a victory for community rights. It proves that the legal system provides a pathway to force a passive Board into action. When a Board neglects its duty to maintain the community contract, they aren’t just “saving the Association from a headache”—they are opening the door to a court-ordered mandate and unnecessary financial penalties.

Conclusion: A Final Thought on Community Governance

Community living is not a suggestion; it is a contract that requires active oversight, not just passive assumptions. The Oakwood Lakes decision reinforces that both homeowners and Boards must look past city permits and “neighborly” promises to the specific, binding language of their governing documents.

Is your HOA Board protecting your property values through active enforcement, or are they leaving you to solve “neighbor disputes” that are actually clear violations of your community’s contract? If the latter is true, remember: you have the power to hold them accountable.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • John C. Martin (Petitioner)
    Owner of residence at 765 West Beechnut Drive; appeared on his own behalf
  • Mrs. Martin (Resident)
    Petitioner's spouse; involved in complaints

Respondent Side

  • Aaron Peterson (Attorney)
    Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.
    Representing Oakwood Lakes Community Association
  • Mitch Kellogg (Property Manager)
    Employed by the management company; visited lots to inspect situation

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (Administrative Law Judge)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Mrs. Downing (Neighbor)
    Neighbor at 755 West Beechnut Drive; operating plant business
  • Robert Barger (Agency Official)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    H/C (Hearing Coordinator/Commissioner)
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
    Attention line for agency copy

Stromme, Walter A. -v- Apache Wells Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 07F-H067009-BFS
Agency DFBLS
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2007-02-12
Administrative Law Judge Lewis D. Kowal
Outcome The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent regarding the building purchase, finding the Board had authority to use general funds. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner regarding the transfer fee, finding the increase to $950 was arbitrary and capricious as it was not reasonably related to specific expenses. The fee increase was voided, and Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee.
Filing Fees Refunded $550.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Walter A. Stromme Counsel Michael K. Hair
Respondent Apache Wells Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel Eric M. Jackson

Alleged Violations

CC&R §§ 3m and 4a and b
Article X, Section 2d(1)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent regarding the building purchase, finding the Board had authority to use general funds. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioner regarding the transfer fee, finding the increase to $950 was arbitrary and capricious as it was not reasonably related to specific expenses. The fee increase was voided, and Respondent was ordered to refund the Petitioner's filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Purchase of building without homeowner vote

Petitioner alleged the Board purchased a building for $723,000 without a vote by homeowners, arguing general funds are for maintenance only and a special assessment was required.

Orders: No action required; Board acted appropriately.

Filing fee: $275.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises Inc.
  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Candlelight Hills Civic Association, Inc. v. Goodwin

Increase of transfer fee

Petitioner challenged the Board's increase of the transfer fee from $300.00 to $950.00 without a vote and without rational justification for the specific amount.

Orders: The increase of the transfer fee is voided and the transfer fee shall be $300.00.

Filing fee: $275.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
  • Powell v. Washburn

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

07F-H067009-BFS Decision – 162088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T04:43:15 (145.5 KB)

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Stromme v. Apache Wells Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the February 12, 2007, decision by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lewis D. Kowal regarding a dispute between homeowner Walter A. Stromme (Petitioner) and the Apache Wells Homeowners Association (Respondent). The Petitioner alleged that the Association’s Board of Directors violated governing documents by purchasing a building and increasing transfer fees without membership votes.

Key Takeaways:

• Building Purchase Upheld: The ALJ ruled that the Board acted within its authority when it purchased a $723,000 building using general funds. The governing documents permit, but do not mandate, the use of special assessments for property acquisition.

• Transfer Fee Increase Voided: The Board’s decision to increase the transfer fee from $300 to $950 was declared void. The ALJ found the increase to be “arbitrary and capricious,” as the Association failed to provide a rational justification or evidence of specific expenses related to the increase.

• Prevailing Party Status: Because the Petitioner successfully challenged the transfer fee increase, he was deemed the prevailing party and awarded a reimbursement of his $550 filing fee. Requests for attorney fees were denied for both parties.

——————————————————————————–

Issue 1: Unauthorized Purchase of Real Property

The Petitioner challenged the Board’s 2006 purchase of a building for $723,000, arguing that such an acquisition required a majority vote of the homeowners under the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Financial and Operational Context

• Acquisition Cost: $723,000, consisting of a $123,000 down payment and a $600,000 bank loan.

• Funding Source: The Board utilized general funds rather than a special assessment.

• Justification: The Association required additional office and meeting space. An architect advised that purchasing the building was more cost-effective than new construction, which was estimated at $1.5 million.

• Loan Terms: A 15-year loan with no prepayment penalty; the Board projected it could be retired in seven years using general assessment funds.

Legal Analysis and Findings

The dispute centered on the interpretation of two paragraphs in the Declaration:

• Paragraph 3M: Establishes general assessments for maintenance and “all services” furnished by the Association.

• Paragraph 4: Grants the power to acquire property and states that “any such special assessment” requires a two-thirds Board vote and ratification by a majority of owners.

The Petitioner argued that Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises Inc. established that maintenance fees cannot be used for property acquisition. However, the ALJ distinguished this case, noting that the Apache Wells Bylaws (Article II, Section 1(D)) explicitly authorize the Association to “assess members to carry out… the acquisition of property.”

Conclusion: The ALJ concluded that Paragraph 4 permits but does not require a special assessment for property acquisition. Since the Association had sufficient general funds and the purchase served a legitimate business need (office and meeting space), the Board acted appropriately.

——————————————————————————–

Issue 2: Increase of Transfer Fees

The Board raised the community transfer fee from $300 to $950 on April 20, 2005. The Petitioner contended this increase was unauthorized and violated the Bylaws.

Association Rationale for Increase

The Association argued the fee was necessary to:

1. Fund repairs for Association-owned commercial buildings (strip mall).

2. Establish a $100,000 reserve for a newly constructed library.

3. Fund enhanced security services.

4. Ensure new residents contribute to existing community amenities they did not previously pay to develop.

5. Allocate $100 per fee to golf course maintenance to preserve community property values.

Evidence of Fee Benchmarking

The Association presented research on nine other Arizona homeowner associations to justify the $950 rate:

Fee Amount

Number of Associations

Over $950

$300 – $939

Legal Analysis and Findings

The ALJ utilized the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, which stipulates that transfer fees are valid only if there is a “rational justification” for the amount.

Critical Deficiencies in the Association’s Case:

• Lack of Cost Accounting: The Association admitted it does not track administrative costs associated with property transfers.

• Vague Expense Projections: The Association failed to provide specific identifiable costs or budget projections that justified the jump to $950.

• Arbitrary Selection: The ALJ determined the amount was “arbitrarily and capriciously selected” and not reasonably related to anticipated expenses.

Conclusion: The increase was deemed unauthorized and voided. The transfer fee was ordered to return to the previous rate of $300.

——————————————————————————–

Final Orders and Financial Awards

Filing and Attorney Fees

• Petitioner’s Filing Fee: The Respondent (Apache Wells) was ordered to pay the Petitioner $550 within 40 days of the order. This was based on the Petitioner’s status as the prevailing party regarding the transfer fee issue (A.R.S. § 41-2198.02).

• Attorney Fees: Neither party was awarded attorney fees. The ALJ noted that an administrative proceeding is not an “action” under A.R.S. § 12-341.01, and the governing documents did not provide for such an award in this context.

Summary of Rulings

Ruling

Action Required

Building Purchase

Upheld

Transfer Fee Increase

Voided

Fee reset to $300

Filing Fee

Awarded to Petitioner

Respondent to pay $550

Study Guide: Stromme v. Apache Wells Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative law judge decision regarding the dispute between Walter A. Stromme and the Apache Wells Homeowners Association. It covers the legal arguments, findings of fact, and final rulings concerning association governance and financial management.

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the provided source context.

1. Who are the parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is the nature of their relationship?

2. What were the two primary issues remaining in dispute at the time of the hearing?

3. What were the specific financial terms of the Board’s purchase of the building in 2006?

4. How did the Board justify the purchase of the building without a membership vote?

5. On what grounds did Mr. Stromme argue that the use of general funds for the building purchase was improper?

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises Inc. case was not controlling in this matter?

7. What rationales did the Board provide for increasing the transfer fee from $300.00 to $950.00?

8. Why did the ALJ ultimately void the increase of the transfer fee?

9. What was the court’s determination regarding the awarding of attorney’s fees for both parties?

10. How was the “prevailing party” determined, and what specific award did that party receive?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. Who are the parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what is the nature of their relationship? The Petitioner is Walter A. Stromme, a homeowner and member of the Apache Wells Homeowners Association since 1996. The Respondent is the Apache Wells Homeowners Association, Inc., represented by its Board of Directors.

2. What were the two primary issues remaining in dispute at the time of the hearing? The first issue was whether the Board violated governing documents by purchasing a $723,000 building using general funds without a homeowner vote. The second issue concerned whether the Board’s increase of the transfer fee from $300.00 to $950.00 without a membership vote was a violation of the Bylaws.

3. What were the specific financial terms of the Board’s purchase of the building in 2006? The building was purchased for a total of $723,000.00, utilizing a down payment of $123,000.00 from general funds and a bank loan of $600,000.00 structured over a fifteen-year term with no pre-payment penalty.

4. How did the Board justify the purchase of the building without a membership vote? The Board argued that the Bylaws grant them the authority to manage association business and purchase real property to provide necessary office and meeting space. They contended that while Paragraph 4 of the Declaration permits special assessments for such purchases, it does not mandate them if general funds are sufficient.

5. On what grounds did Mr. Stromme argue that the use of general funds for the building purchase was improper? Mr. Stromme argued that according to Paragraph 3M of the Declaration, general assessment funds are strictly intended for maintenance costs. He asserted that any acquisition of real property must instead be funded through a special assessment, which requires ratification by a majority of the homeowners.

6. Why did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determine that the Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises Inc. case was not controlling in this matter? The ALJ found that unlike the association in Divizio, Apache Wells had specific Bylaws (Article II, Section 1(D)) authorizing the acquisition of property. Additionally, the ALJ noted that Apache Wells is governed by modern statutes like the Arizona Non-profit Corporation Act and the Planned Community Act, which were not applicable at the time of the Divizio decision.

7. What rationales did the Board provide for increasing the transfer fee from $300.00 to $950.00? The Board cited the need for additional funds to cover repairs for association-owned buildings, the creation of a $100,000 reserve for a new library, and increased security costs. They also argued the fee ensures new residents contribute to the amenities enjoyed by long-term members, with a portion specifically allocated to golf course maintenance.

8. Why did the ALJ ultimately void the increase of the transfer fee? The ALJ concluded the $950.00 amount was selected “arbitrarily and capriciously” because the Association failed to provide evidence of specific anticipated expenses or a calculated relationship between the fee and administrative costs. While transfer fees are generally valid if they have a rational justification, the Association did not maintain records to justify this specific increase.

9. What was the court’s determination regarding the awarding of attorney’s fees for both parties? The ALJ denied attorney’s fees to both parties, noting that under Arizona law, an administrative proceeding is not considered an “action” that qualifies for fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Furthermore, the governing documents of the Association did not contain provisions for awarding attorney’s fees in this type of proceeding.

10. How was the “prevailing party” determined, and what specific award did that party receive? Mr. Stromme was deemed the prevailing party because he successfully established that the Association acted without authority regarding the transfer fee increase. As the prevailing party, he was awarded a reimbursement of his $550.00 filing fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2198.02.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

1. Mandatory vs. Permissive Language in Governing Documents: Analyze how the ALJ interpreted the relationship between Paragraph 3M and Paragraph 4 of the Declaration. How does the distinction between “having the right” to issue a special assessment and being “required” to do so impact Board authority?

2. The Limits of Board Discretion: Discuss the legal standard of “arbitrary and capricious” as applied to the transfer fee increase. What specific evidence could the Board have provided to meet the “rational justification” requirement set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes?

3. Modern Statutory Context in HOA Disputes: Explore why the ALJ prioritized the Arizona Non-profit Corporation Act and the Planned Community Act over older case law like Divizio. How does the modern legal framework for homeowners associations differ from the mobile home park context addressed in 1983?

4. The Validity of Transfer Fees: Based on the testimony of Mr. Stoll, evaluate the philosophical and practical justifications for transfer fees in a planned community. Is the goal of “making a contribution towards amenities” a sufficient legal basis for such fees if they are not tied to administrative costs?

5. Defining the “Prevailing Party” in Multi-Issue Litigations: In this case, Mr. Stromme lost on Issue 1 but won on Issue 2. Evaluate the ALJ’s reasoning for declaring him the prevailing party and awarding the filing fee. Should a petitioner be considered “prevailing” if they only succeed on a portion of their claims?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

A judge who conducts hearings and makes recommendations or decisions regarding disputes involving government agencies and regulated entities.

Arbitrary and Capricious

A legal standard used to describe a decision made without a rational basis, reasonable justification, or consideration of relevant facts.

A.R.S. § 41-2198.01

The Arizona Revised Statute that grants the Office of Administrative Hearings jurisdiction over disputes between owners and planned community associations.

Bylaws

The internal rules and regulations that govern the management and operation of a corporation or association.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

A legal document, often referred to as the “Declaration,” that imposes specific rules and limits on how land and property within a development can be used.

General Assessment

Periodic fees (often monthly) paid by homeowners to cover the recurring costs of maintenance and association services.

Governing Documents

The collective set of documents—including the Declaration, Bylaws, and Articles of Incorporation—that define the powers of an HOA and the rights of its members.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The burden of proof in civil cases, requiring that a fact is “more probably true than not” or that the evidence is of greater weight than the opposition.

Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes

A legal treatise that Arizona courts often look to for guidance in property law disputes in the absence of contrary local precedent.

Special Assessment

A one-time or specific fee charged to homeowners to cover major expenses, such as the acquisition of property or major construction, often requiring a membership vote.

Transfer Fee

A fee assessed to the buyer of a home in a community at the time of sale, intended to raise funds for the general operation or amenities of the association.

The Hidden Limits of HOA Power: Lessons from the Apache Wells Decision

Introduction: The Relatable Struggle of Homeowner Governance

For many residents in planned communities, the relationship with a Homeowners Association (HOA) board is a study in tension. On one hand, the board is tasked with maintaining property values and community standards; on the other, homeowners often feel they are writing blank checks to a body that wields significant power with limited oversight. This power struggle frequently boils down to a single question: When does the board need your permission to spend your money?

This tension was the catalyst for Walter A. Stromme vs. Apache Wells Homeowners Association, Inc., a case heard before an Arizona Administrative Law Judge. The dispute provides a masterclass in the legal boundaries of community governance. It illustrates both the broad discretion boards enjoy over general spending and the strict, data-driven limits placed on their ability to set fees. For anyone living under a set of CC&Rs, the decision is an essential roadmap for understanding where a board’s authority ends and homeowner rights begin.

——————————————————————————–

Takeaway 1: The “General Fund” Loophole for Massive Purchases

One of the most startling revelations of the Apache Wells case was the Board’s ability to purchase a $723,000 building without a community vote. While many homeowners assume a capital expenditure of nearly three-quarters of a million dollars would trigger a democratic process, the Board successfully argued that the source of the funds, rather than the amount, dictated the rules.

Under the community’s Declaration, a “Special Assessment” required a two-thirds vote of the Board and ratification by a majority of homeowners. However, the Board did not issue a special assessment. Instead, they used the Association’s “General Funds”—money already collected through standard monthly assessments—to make the down payment and secure a loan.

As a legal analyst, it is critical to note that the Board navigated the silence of the governing documents. The Declaration permitted a special assessment for property acquisition but did not mandate it as the exclusive means of purchase. In law, “may” does not mean “must.” Because the documents didn’t expressly forbid using general funds for such a purchase, the Board’s authority was anchored in the By-laws, which allow the Board to:

——————————————————————————–

Takeaway 2: “Maintenance” is a Broad Legal Bucket (and Statutes Evolve)

The petitioner, Mr. Stromme, argued that the funds were improperly diverted. He contended that according to Paragraph 3M of the Declaration, general assessment fees were intended for the “cost of maintenance” and the “furnishing of services,” not for the acquisition of new real estate.

Mr. Stromme relied on the 1983 case Divizio v. Kewin Enterprises Inc., where the court ruled that maintenance expenses in a mobile home park could not include the purchase of common areas. However, the Judge in Apache Wells rejected this precedent, providing a vital lesson in statutory evolution.

The Judge noted that Divizio was decided before the Arizona Non-profit Corporation Act and the Planned Community Act were in existence. These modern frameworks grant HOAs broader corporate powers. Consequently, the Judge interpreted the phrase “furnishing of any and all services” broadly enough to include the acquisition of property necessary to run the association’s business, such as office space and meeting rooms. For the modern homeowner, “maintenance” is no longer just about fixing a fence; it is about the total infrastructure required to manage the community.

——————————————————————————–

Takeaway 3: You Can’t Just Pick a Number (The $950 Failure)

While the Board won the right to spend existing funds, they lost the battle over increasing them. In 2005, the Board hiked the community transfer fee from $300 to $950. Their justification was a general need for more income to cover building repairs, security, and reserves.

The Judge voided this increase, citing a lack of “Rational Justification.” The Board’s defense was particularly weak because it was arbitrary: they admitted they did not track specific administrative costs related to property transfers. Furthermore, the Board had allocated $100 of that transfer fee specifically to golf course maintenance. This was a tactical error; using a general transfer fee to subsidize a specific amenity like a golf course, without data-driven cost tracking, is the definition of “arbitrary and capricious.”

Crucially, the Board tried to justify the $950 fee by researching nine other HOAs and showing that some charged even more. The Judge rejected this entirely. Market rate does not equal legal authority. Even if every HOA in the state charges $1,000, if your specific documents or internal cost-tracking don’t support it, the fee is illegal. As the Judge noted:

——————————————————————————–

Takeaway 4: The Primacy of “Ground Truth” and Business Judgment

The Apache Wells decision underscores the supremacy of “Ground Truth”—the specific wording recorded in the By-laws and Declarations at a community’s inception. Homeowners often rely on “common sense” or “fairness,” but the law prioritizes the four corners of the recorded document. Because the Declaration gave the Association the power to “acquire additional real… property” and did not explicitly force a vote for all acquisitions, the Board’s path was clear.

However, the Board also protected itself through the “Business Judgment” rule. They didn’t just buy the building on a whim; they presented evidence that they had consulted an architect and analyzed long-range plans. The architect advised the Board that building a new facility from scratch would cost $1.5 million, making the $723,000 purchase appear fiscally responsible and prudent by comparison.

When a Board can show a reasonable business need (like office space) and a fiscally responsible execution (saving $777,000 compared to new construction), courts are extremely hesitant to second-guess them.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Balance of Power in Modern Communities

The Apache Wells ruling is a split decision that offers both a shield and a sword. For board members, the takeaway is clear: your ledger is your best legal defense. You have significant latitude to manage assets, but you cannot hike fees simply because you want “more income.” Every dollar assessed must be tied to a specific, trackable expense.

For homeowners, this case is a reminder that transparency is the only way to hold a board accountable. While the “General Fund loophole” may seem unfair, it is a legal reality in many communities where the governing documents were written to prioritize board efficiency over total democracy.

The balance of power in your community rests on the data. If your HOA board made a major purchase tomorrow using existing funds, would your governing documents give you a say, or have you already signed that right away?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Walter A. Stromme (petitioner)
    Homeowner
    Member since 1996
  • Michael K. Hair (attorney)
    Michael K. Hair, P.C.

Respondent Side

  • Eric M. Jackson (attorney)
    Jackson White
    Representing Apache Wells Homeowners Association
  • Brian Johnson (witness)
    Apache Wells Homeowners Association
    Former Board President (Jan 2006-Jan 2007); Board member (2004-2007)
  • Marvin Stoll (witness)
    Apache Wells Homeowners Association
    Current Board President

Neutral Parties

  • Lewis D. Kowal (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Robert Barger (Director)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of order
  • Joyce Kesterman (Agency Staff)
    Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
    Listed on transmission of order